“Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class.”
—Al Capone
It has taken Nuremberg-class war crimes, craven ineptitude by Congressional Democrats, foreclosures on every other home in the neighborhood, and a metaphorical gun to our heads when we fill our gas tanks, but growing numbers of us US Americans are shedding our smug insularity.
“Ron Paul in 2008” has become the mantra for untold millions who are realizing that the establishment in the United States is an abomination that needs to be torn down and replaced. Ostensibly, Dr. Paul is the populist maverick we need to shake up the system and set our nation on a path to sanity and viability. His political coffers are overflowing with cash, almost none of which came from corporate or “special” interests. He is principled and consistent. And his position on a number of important issues aligns with the interests of the masses.
When he appeared on Meet the Press on December 23rd, even Tim Russert, one of the system’s most prominent cheerleading whores, couldn’t rattle him. It would certainly have been difficult not to admire Paul’s frontal assault on a number of the “sacred cows” that Russert and his ilk in the mainstream media work so hard to defend.
Consider several of the broad-sides Paul leveled against our malignant status quo:
[MR. RUSSERT: Would you cut off all foreign aid to Israel?
REP. PAUL: Absolutely.
REP. PAUL: They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they, and they attack us because we’re over there.
MR. RUSSERT: “Because we’re over there.” And then you added this on Tuesday: “But” al-qaeda has “determination. The determination comes from being provoked.” How have we, the United States, provoked al-Qaeda?
REP. PAUL: Well, read what the lead–the ringleader says. Read what Osama bin Laden said. We had, we had a base, you know, in Saudi Arabia that was an affront to their religion, that was blasphemy as far as they were concerned. We were bombing Iraq for 10 years, we were–we’ve interfered in Iran since 1953. Our CIA’s been involved in the overthrow of their governments. We’re bought right now in the process of overthrowing that nation. We side more with Israel and Pakistan, and, and they get annoyed with this. How would we react if we were on their land–if they were on our land? We would be very annoyed, and we’d be fighting mad.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you think there’s an ideological struggle that Islamic fascists want to take over the world?
REP. PAUL: Oh, I think some, just like the West is wanting to do that all the time. Look at the way they look at us. I mean, we’re in a, we’re in a 130 countries. We have 700 bases. How do you think they proposed that to their people, saying “What does America want to do? Are they over here to be nice to us and teach us how to be good Democrats?”
REP PAUL: ….But the point is I’m not against the FBI investigation in doing a proper role, but I’m against the FBI spying on people like Martin Luther King. I’m against the CIA fighting secret wars and overthrowing government and interfering…]
Amen to ending over a hundred years of imperialistic foreign policy, breaking up the military industrial complex, cutting off our financial and military support of the genocidal squatters in Palestine, and reining in the torturers and assassins in our “intelligence” community. His pursuit of these goals is certainly an objectively sound reason to support Ron Paul.
Yet despite these highly laudable positions, Paul is potentially as treacherous as the creatures of the system most of us have come to loathe. Compared to opportunistic moneyed elites like Mitt Romney or Hillary Clinton, Paul is indeed an alluring candidate.
Jason Miller is a recovering US American middle class suburbanite who strives to remain intellectually free. He is Cyrano's Journal Online's associate editor (http://www.bestcyrano.org/) and publishes Thomas Paine's Corner within Cyrano's at http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/.
The serfs of feudal europe had a deal with their ruling class. They were allowed to keep half of what they could take fromt he land.
I challenge any American worker to look at his take home pay. About half of what you earned, right?
The only difference between the slaves of feudal europe and the American worker is that the serfs knew they were slaves.
Gains? What on earth are you talkng about?
Capitalism, which is nothing more than the desire for a man to advance himself freely, is not your problem. Control of national currency by private banking interests is your problem, and Dr. Paul is apparently the only candidate that understands this.
The only chance the working man has, and I'm one of them, is for the federal reserve system to be abolished, fiat money dicarded for real money, and the elimination of the income tax.
Then the American worker won't need and uncle sam to protect his interests. He can do it himself.
So by all means continue crapping all over the only chance we've got!
Better yet, go read The Creature From Jekyll Island, and learn about the REAL economic sytmen we live under.
by
Bob Tracey (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 41 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 1:50:24 PM
i have heard this over and over that paul's free reign of capitalism would be overrun by the wealthy corporations and destroy the middle and lower class-
if this is true why are no corporations giving him money??????
please just think this through, if a Paul presidency meant new levels of power and profit why are they funding his opponents??
please just stop and think, people!
by
jeremy xx (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 23 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 3:45:51 PM
Oh, brother, there is that 'Zionist' term again. It has
once again been misused by this author and nearly ruined the entire article. Define what you mean by 'Zionist'. Therein you will find the words you should have used instead of the 'Z' word.
by
Steven Leser (186 articles, 34 quicklinks, 31 diaries, 1251 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 2:01:30 PM
When did we as Americans become so frightened, so paranoid that the simple act of questioning the state makes you an enemy of it. Dr. Paul is simply implying that perhaps our interests and paridime of thinking are not the paragon of reason that we hold them out to be.
I'm not going to go on a long rant here because I don't believe that anyone that has adopted the view that they are 100% correct can't be reasoned with. I simply ask this; we have been told over and over again that "they" hate us because we are free and "they" are attacking our way of life... Then why did they chose to attack the perceived headquarters of our economic and military might around the world? Why not a Football game, or a church, or College campus?
Could it be that they are under the impression that economic hegemony backed up by military force is the American way of life? I wonder what gave them that idea?
by
Navyguy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 2:07:11 PM
I will proudly say, "Yes" to Dr. Paul in January despite the desperate eleventh-hour attempts like those of Tim Russert to whip up controversy about this honorable man. Notably, Governor Huckabee was on Meet the Press today, and Mr. Russert tossed him one happy softball question after another. There seems to be a distinct desire, for whatever reason, that there be a hawkish Republican candidate running against the eventual Democratic candidate. That matchup by both parties' powerbrokers. Don't count Ron Paul out, though. There are many more of us than the opinion polls would have you think who believe he would be an outstanding president. See you on voting day.
by
Darryl Schmitz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 2:10:00 PM
Breaking the corporatocracy by preventing them from getting first dibs on our tax money and freshly printed paper is the only way to get our government back. Sure, they will still have economic power in a free market, but they won't be running the government, and there are natural built in regulators in a free market that will prevent them from monopolizing it. This centralized economic system is overriding those natural regulators, the masses have very little power, and it is rapidly diminishing.
NOT voting is the worst thing we could do in this situation. It is the only democratic power we have left. Congress quit listening to us a long time ago. You would know that if you'd been paying attention.
by
Sam Liberty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 2:28:43 PM
How many times must it be said: Capitalism is dead. The phoenix that has risen from its ashes is Fascism. That is what we have now, not capitalism. A sudden revertion to pure capitalism would destroy the world economy as we know it because the "free-market" is propped up at home by each country's government, spending the hard-earned wealth of the people on the extravagant 'investments' of the absurdly rich. Make no mistake, Washington in its current arrangement exists as the breadwinner for Wall Street, making an ever-expanding economy possible by bamboozling the public out of more and more each year.
What Ron Paul is talking about is cutting those ties: Let the market stand on its own. Ron Paul would end corporate welfare, end federal subsidies of corporate policies that can remain oblivious to their impact on reality and can refuse to evolve because no matter how badly they fail, the fed will bail them out. Our current bailout of the banks involved in the housing crisis is a perfect example: there is no compassion for the millions left homeless, but Washington is tripping over itself to make sure that the banks who started the whole mess don't lose a dime.
Not to mention that Ron Paul would end the biggest corporate subsidy of all: War. War is what runs the military-industrial complex, the biggest engine of our corporate economy.
So when you say that Ron Paul is pro-business and is going to make our current situation worse, you need to stop and think for a second that when neocons and neoliberals say 'free-market' they are using newspeak. What they mean is Fascism. When Ron Paul says free market what he means is: ending Fascism.
by
Caleb Friz (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 28 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 3:28:12 PM
Ron Paul is very far from being a populist. Ron Paul is an individualist who believes in personal responisbility and self-reliance.
Aside from the populist mis-label, the first page of this article wasn't bad. Unfortunately you then decended into non-sensical populist communistic babbling for the second half.
Here is a hint: it is not "us vs. the system", we are the system. Welcome to America. If you would like to live in a communistic state, I hear China still has a little of that going on. I don't think you would enjoy it as much as you might think. When communism was in full swing in Russia and China the people had no rights and no property. I don't want to live like a farm animal. Give me capitalism or give me death!
by
JohnMatthews (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 3:29:19 PM
Communism is supposed to preoect the workers from being exploited by the bourgeosie and create a classless society where all are treated as equals. What do we have in China today? Capitalism at the point of a gun. Wages are kept artifically low and the currency is manipulated so the big corporations can do exactly what Communism is supposed to put an end to. Chinese workers labor under horrid conditions and are paid terribly. Communism? Not hardly.
by
Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 306 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 3:34:47 PM
Communism is a socioeconomic ideology. Economically, China has moved to more open markets because it was required for their survival. Socially, China is still very much communistic.
Communism has never created a classless society. Government has always benefited at the expense of individuals. You might say that this is because communism has never truly been implemented... I say it's because the notion that equal benefits for unequal effort contradicts all human motivation to form a productive society.
The purpose of government should be to promote truly free market capitalism by: protecting property rights, recognizing the natural rights of the individual, enforcing voluntary contracts and providing a means to redress grievances. This is what Dr. Paul advocates.
Capitalism at the point of a gun is not free market capitalism. Government coercion has been a prominent feature of all communistic societies including China.
by
JohnMatthews (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 4:08:26 PM
I suppose some of the Native American cultures were very close to true communism. Certainly much closer than we've come in modern times.
As long as you require an entity (government) to enforce communistic principles, communism can never truly be achieved. In these cases, the government will always constitute a class above the common citizen.
by
JohnMatthews (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 4:26:28 PM
Your discussion is at the level of a brainwashed comic book.
It's characteristic of today's American ignoramus to jump directly from any criticism of capitalism to overly-broad statements like "Communism failed", accompanied by references to China & Russia.
Just as you were taught in junior high school, you smugly claim "Here is a hint: it is not 'us vs. the system', we are the system. Welcome to America. If you would like to live in a communistic state, I hear China still has a little of that going on."
Is that right, that "we are the system"? Do you think America is ruled by "We, the people"? Or is it basically controlled by representatives of the largest corporations? One of the main features of the Ron Paul campaign is that it expresses the disgust of increasing numbers of citizens with business-as-usual politics. Those who have become disenchanted with conventional candidates are increasingly aware that the US government is now a wholly-controlled subsidiary of the big corporate interests. Yet here you are, a Ron Paul supporter -- apparently unaware that "We, the people," no longer have the slightest control over our government.
You write that "When communism was in full swing in Russia and China the people had no rights and no property. I don't want to live like a farm animal. Give me capitalism or give me death!"
Here's a short history lesson for you. Before 1917, there was no "Communism" in Russia. The people lived under the Tsars (whom the US and Britain had no conflict with, or particular criticism of). The Russian people were a hell of a lot worse off then, and lived more like farm animals, than they were by 1955 under "Communism." And that is despite suffering through 2 of the most terrible invasions in world history, plus a civil war, plus the West's making every effort to isolate & destroy the Soviet economy.
I am no fan of Stalin or Stalinism, but the typical American ignoramus's impression of what happened in the USSR is like a comic book. Considering what Russia was like before 1917, and what they went through after the Soviets took power, they did amazingly well, in many ways. There were great gains in literacy, access to social services including health care, rural electrification, & so forth. They never succeeded in terms of consumer goods, & certainly not in terms of political democracy -- but considering where they started from, the gains were rather impressive.
If you don't want to live like a farm animal, do you think you'd have been happy living under the Tsar? That after all was "capitalism," in its day. Do you think you would have enjoyed living in capitalist countries in the post WWII era, in which the American CIA installed brutal dictators -- such as in Iran, Indonesia, or throughout South & Central America? How much "democratic rights" do you suppose you would have had, as a citizen in Guatemala after 1954, after the CIA overthrew the democratic govt there? Would you have liked to live in capitalist Chile under the US-supported Pinochet?
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1013 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 9:57:26 PM
"The Russian people were a hell of a lot worse off then, and lived more like farm animals, than they were by 1955 under "Communism."
That was after Stalin died. But just a few years before that, when Stalin was alive, living like a farm animal would be heaven compared to the fate of millions who were murdered, starved, or in the process of freezing to death in work camps in Siberia. Let's not diminish the atrocities of Stalin, who makes Hitler look like a nice guy. There is nothing "comic book" about Stalin's holocausts.
by
Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 114 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 7:15:48 AM
Don't waste your breath, with a comment like this. First of
all, nothing I said "diminished the atrocities of Stalin." Secondly, Stalin did not, in fact, make Hitler "look like a nice guy." That's a comic-book-like statement, very typical of an American ignoramus. The 2 historical figures were both extremely ruthless authoritarians, & in some ways comparable (though Hitler was worse by far, in terms of international aggression). There is no valid argument to be made that Stalin made Hitler "look nice."
More importantly, the article under discussion attempts to criticize capitalism. I was pointing out the tendency of American ignoramuses to try to jump reflexively from any criticism of capitalism to statements like "So, let's just look at the crimes of Stalin!" My point above was that this reflex jump is foolish and irrational. Even if Stalin committed great crimes, it doesn't in any way follow that equally great crimes have not been committed by capitalist regimes --and it doesn't in any way follow that all non-capitalist regimes commit great crimes. It really says nothing about essential differences between socialism and capitalism. (In fact, the USSR was not really "socialist," either -- but that's another subject.)
In other words, tossing up the example of Stalin as a "response" to a criticism of capitalism is silly & illogical. It's rooted mainly in American brainwashing -- not in any interest in historical truth.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1013 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 12:44:11 PM
"I am no fan of Stalin or Stalinism, but the typical American ignoramus's impression of what happened in the USSR is like a comic book. Considering what Russia was like before 1917, and what they went through after the Soviets took power, they did amazingly well, in many ways. There were great gains in literacy, access to social services including health care, rural electrification, & so forth."
They did "amazingly well." And you never mentioned genocide, but implied that only ignoramuses think bad things were going on in Russia. The REAL story, you say, was one of progress. The "bad side" is the comic book fantasy that only ignoramuses believe. That downplays the atrocities that actually went on.
Stalin's death toll was much larger than Hitler's, but I agree "Stalin makes Hitler look nice" was not the best way of drawing a comparison. I meant to emphasize proportion, not to offend.
You faulted me for not commenting on your main point respecting capitalism, but on a supporting argument. That's because your supporting argument was ridiculous.
by
Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 114 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 5:23:29 PM
A fair assessment of RP's pluses & minuses. Beyond the
matter of RP himself, however, the article takes the disappointingly wimpy position in its closing sentences that "unless by some miracle a viable candidate who opposes capitalism actually emerges," the best thing we can do is just not vote.
To me, that seems the wrong note on which to conclude the article. I'd have gone with something like, "Until serious opponents of capitalism can run for high office, we must work to broad awareness that capitalism itself is our underlying problem."
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1013 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 3:47:36 PM
Allowing this charade to continue will make a lot of common people millionaires. Unfortunately, it will cost $40 for a small order of fries.
I normally don't vote because I don't want to endorse the corrupt system. In this case I'm voting for Ron Paul because he at least gives us a fighting chance at survival.
by
Wildboar (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 3:48:54 PM
STOP REPLYING TO THIS NITWIT. IT JUST GIVES HIM HITS FROM GOOGLE. HE ONLY DOES THIS BECAUSE HE NEEDS TO SHOW UNIQUE USERS TO THIS SITE TO GET MORE MONEY. GET A JOB LOSER
by
mike ma (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 4:42:49 PM
Sorry, we can not afford to sit out 08. There is no such thing as the perfect candidate and Paul or Kucinich is all we have to go with if we have any hope of getting out of this mess. Either one, perfect? No, but it is a start. And with a huge turnout for either of these men it will send a message that cannot be ignored, manipulated, covered up, or tampered with. We have but this one opportunety and then the window may well slam shut - forever. Anything we can do that slows them up buys us the much needed time to wake up more people. It must be remembered, America is a sleeping giant and historically has been slow to anger but always has arisen to meet each challenge. Sitting this out is not an option. In doing so, what may well result could be you sitting in a concentration camp with plenty of time to think about woulda, coulda, shouldas.
by
usxp (0 articles, 18 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 11 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 4:46:12 PM
A President Paul would not be able alone to abolish existing law that attempts to regulate commerce, finance, food, medicine, mine safety, construction, and many other structures of civilization. For that reason, if it's a choice between Paul and a global corporatist, Paul would have my vote.
However, the idea that deregulation is useful is not provable and there are clear examples throughout history of deregulation crippling the economy where it has been tried.
Anyone unfamiliar with the havoc created by deregulated environments only has to look at California's ridiculous abandonment of its well regulated electrical generating and distribution system that for decades had provided cheap cost plus fixed profit margin electricity to business large and small and to all the state's residents while providing a steady, reliable stream of income to investors in Pacific Gas & Electric.
Thanks to meddlesome "free marketers" with promises of lowered cost and increased supply that would be achieved by competition and deregulation, the state allowed Wall Street and global venture capitalists to take over the system, with only the so called free market to regulate price and supply.
What a fiasco. Enron built it's business plan on the ponzi scheme of trading in energy futures and gaming markets. Huge profits were initially sucked out of the system as supplies were intemtionally reduced by shutting down working power plants thus pushing prices upward.
The most glaring example were rolling blackouts in California in December one year. The media hyping this so called "energy shortage" never bothered to inform their audience that December is one of the lowest peak demand electical energy months, and the same network of power plants that were supposed to be so deficient due to "years of regulation", had no problem supply twice the electicity the prior and next summer for air conditioning, when Calidorinia's electricity demand is higest all year.
While the large and small businesses and residents suffered through these blackouts, Pacific Gas & Electric was headed toward backruptcy, destroying the savings of many conservative investors.
Deregulation removes any control of the voting public through their representatives to rein in the natural attributes of greed and selfishness that are primed, encouraged, and nourished in a deregulated environment.
The Consitution provides for the "General Welfare" of the states. I know some are loathe to accept any role for "The Government" but the Founding Fathers prescribed that Congress enact laws as they see fit to provide for the General Welfare, subject to the checks and balances of the Administration of these laws handled under The President and the rulings in the Constitutionality of any law by the Court.
by
csnet (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 69 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 7:48:00 PM
Do you think deregulation has any value when applied to certain markets or situations? Or do you think deregulation is categorically BAD? If so, carrying the argument to the extreme, wouldn't we be stuck with snowballing regulations that can never be reversed?
The problem, as we know, is that regulated markets aren't as receptive to the demands of the people as free markets. Regulations impose choices on people and restrict progress by interfering with the selective elimination of services or products that have been improved upon. So, right now, the products and services favored by regulation always win, and these are not necessarily the best or the most in demand. In the medical field, this is particularly unfortunate, because regulation always favors pharmaceuticals over natural cures, without respect to which is superior overall.
It could be argued that the power problems in CA were more a consequence of sloppy transition from regulation to deregulation than a clear demonstration of "free market" dangers. The transition was, as you wrote, instigated by Wall Street and not arranged with the people's best interest in mind.
I think its possible to deregulate gradually and carefully to minimize these disasters. Ron Paul has said that in the case of removing the Fed outright, "The treatment would be worse than the disease." I"m confident that as he exercised his executive power to deregulate in other areas he'd be just as aware of the potential harm of administering hasty "treatments."
by
Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 114 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 7:54:07 AM
